Hatfield vs Sessions U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. of IL

Even though Hatfield received a small fine and no prison time for his non-violent statutory felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) bans him from owning a gun. That statute makes it unlawful for a person to possess a gun if they have
been convicted of a crime that is technically punishable by more than one year (i.e. a felony)—regardless of the sentence that the individual actually received. Since making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) is punishable by up to five years, Hatfield falls within the gambit of § 922(g)(1).

So for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment by Jefferson B. Sessions, III, in his Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the United States (Doc. 41), GRANTS Larry Edward Hatfield’s motion for summary judgment (See Docs. 47, 48); and DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment as-applied to Larry Edward Hatfield: a non-violent felon who received no prison time for his offense.

It's too bad they couldn't have filed the non-resident carry ban litigation in this judge's district.

There's a lot of red meat in the decision for gun rights proponents, but there's a great quote that deserves notice:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

It seems that, on the bottom of page 10, the AG didn't put much effort into presenting his case. That could be interpreted as supporting Hatfield. The AG was required to reply to the motion and merely "went through the motions". Am I reading between the lines too much?